Educators’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices in Reading ...ucrl.utah.edu/researchers/pdf/aera05d2.pdf · Educators’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices in Reading First: First

Educators’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices in Reading First: First Year

Findings

John L. HospJanice A. Dole

Michelle K. HospUniversity of Utah

Reading FirstThis study is the first in series of studies that

examines teacher and student learning arising out of the U. S. Department of Education’s Reading First in a western state in the U.S.

Reading First is designed to:1) Help K-3 children in high poverty achieve

at the rate of their more fortunate peers.2) Reduce the rate of referral to special

education.

Reading FirstConceptual Framework for Reading

First

• Reading First fits within the context of school reform researched over the last 15 or 20 years.

• Several reviews of research on school reform demonstrate difficulty in changing instruction in schools.

Reading FirstFocus of this study:

• Special interest in teacher knowledge, attitudes--including attitudes toward Reading First, outcome expectancy and self-efficacy.

• Special interest in how K-3 teachers spend their instructional time.

ParticipantsParticipants

• Involves 16 schools in 6 school districts.

• 7 district coordinators.

• 16 literacy coaches.

• 16 principals.

• 233 teachers.

Teacher MeasuresTeacher Knowledge of Reading First

Survey (Torgesen, Florida Center for Reading Research, 2003).

• Measures participants’ broad and deep knowledge of reading and reading instruction.

• Measures six areas--phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, assessments.

– Alpha reliability --.846

Teacher MeasuresTeacher Attitudes towards Reading First.

Two items asking for participants’ attitudes toward Reading First and how enthusiastic they were about participating in Reading First,Scale of 1(low) to 6 (high).

Alpha reliability of .896

Teacher MeasuresOutcome Expectancy about Early Reading

Instruction (Adapted from Edmonds, 2000 and Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard,

2001).

• Measures participants’ beliefs that certain research-based teaching strategies result in improved reading instruction.

• I believe… “regularly regrouping students helps address their instructional needs.”

- Alpha reliability -- .870

Teacher MeasuresSelf-Efficacy about Early Reading

Instruction Survey (Adapted from Edmonds, 2000 and Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001).

• measures teachers’ and coaches’ beliefs about their own capabilities to organize and manage a reading program and effectively teach students.

• I believe I can… “monitor students’ understanding of what they read.”

- Alpha reliability -- .925

Teacher MeasuresInstructional Content Emphasis-R2

(ICE-R2) (Adapted from Edmonds and Briggs, 2003).

• Records teachers’ use of time on instructional practice of 10 dimensions of reading.

• Observers take field notes and then code using coding scheme and coding book.

- Interrater reliability -- .90

Teacher ResultsTable 1

Reading First Teacher Knowledge SurveyŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

Fall Spring ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

M SD M SD ESParticipantsŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹExperts (n = 10) 27.70 1.05 - - -

Coordinators (n = 7) 22.57 2.44 26.00 1.82 -Coaches (n = 15) 21.87 4.24 24.40 3.24 0.60**

Principals (n = 15) 19.40 3.75 20.27 4.30 0.21

Teachers (n = 233) 16.84 3.76 18.40 4.51 0.37***ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

Number correct out of 29 items. * p < .05; ** p < .01 *** p < .001.

Teacher ResultsTable 2

Reading First Teacher Attitude SurveyŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Fall Spring

ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹM SD M SD ES

ParticipantsŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

Coordinators (n = 7)1 11.43 1.51 11.57 1.13 -

Coaches (n = 15) 11.00 1.96 10.73 1.16 0.15Principals (n = 15) 10.53 2.03 11.13 1.30 0.35

Teachers (n = 233) 8.99 2.34 9.20 2.14 0.09ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹScores range from low of 2 to high of 12.1Effect sizes were not calculated for coordinators because o f small n.

Teacher ResultsTable 3

Outcome Expectancy of Early Reading InstructionŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

Fall Spring ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

M SD M SD ESParticipantsŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

Coordinators (n=7) 1 96.16 4.23 91.46 9.47Coaches (n = 15) 96.86 4.81 98.35 2.51 0.31

Principals (n = 15) 91.42 9.77 89.46 13.46 0.14

Teachers (n = 233) 91.64 7.82 92.49 7.90 0.10ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ

On a scale of 1-100.1Effect sizes were not calculated for coordinators because of low n.

Teacher Results

Table 4Self-Efficacy about Early Reading Instruction

ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Fall Spring ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ M SD M SD ES

ParticipantsŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹCoaches (n = 15) 86.40 8.77 92.54 6.20 0.80*

Teachers (n = 233) 78.82 13.69 82.06 12.57 0.25**ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹOn a scale of 1-100. * p < .05; ** p < .001.

Teacher ObservationsResults of ICE-R2 - Grade 1

0% Concepts of Print

8% Phonological Awareness

1% Alphabetic Knowledge

25% Word Study / Phonics

6% Spelling

1% Oral Language

10% Fluency

11% Reading Text

29% Comprehension

9% Writing

9% 8%0%1%

29%

11% 10%1%

6%

25%

Teacher Observations

0% Concepts of Print

0% Phonological Awareness

0% Alphabetic Knowledge

11% Word Study / Phonics

5% Spelling

0% Oral Language

4% Fluency

10% Reading Text

46% Comprehension

24% Writing

Results of ICE-R2 - Grade 3

24%

46%

0% 11%5%

4%

10%

0%0%

0%

Conclusions• Coaches and teachers appeared to gain

knowledge across Year 1 of the project.

• No change in teacher attitudes and beliefs.

• No change in teacher outcome expectancy.

• Increase in self-efficacy of coaches and teachers.

Conclusions

• Teacher observations revealed how much teacher time was spent on each area of instruction at grades 1-3.

Into the FutureAdditional Questions:

• How does teacher instructional time relate to student achievement?

• What are the best student/teacher predictors of student achievement?